When an individual has taken a certain course of action, who is to determine whether that action taken was right or wrong? And what basis should the individual passing judgment use to decide whether that action was right or wrong? Should the individual passing judgment consider the other individual’s purpose or intent in taking the action, or should he consider the resulting consequences of the other individual’s actions? If the individual passing judgment were to choose to do the first of these two alternatives, he would be taking a deontological stance, as compared to the later which describes the consequentialist view.
As Stephen J. Freeman explains, consequentialism is the belief that “actions and/or rules are right as long as they produce the most favorable consequences for those affected by the actions or rules” (Freeman 63). Consequentialists view the morality of a consequence in two aspects. One aspect is what is called ethical egoism. Ethical egoism is “the idea that morality is defined as acting in one’s own interest and in such a way as to maximize the consequences of good over bad” (Freeman 49). In contrast to ethical egoism is utilitarianism. Utilitarianists view morality as when an action promotes the greatest balance of good over bad for all people. “Utilitarianism is a teleological, goal-directed theory emphasizing happiness as the end result of human action” (Freeman 49).
In Freeman’s book on ethics, he discusses Holmes’ proposal of two types of teleological ethical theories that apply to these two differing consequentialist views. Holmes’ proposal is that of micro and macro ethics. Micro ethics regards the happiness of the individual as the highest good and defines what is right as the action that maximizes that end. By definition, micro ethics is very similar to the belief of ethical egoism. On the other hand, macro ethics views happiness as the well-being of a group as a whole and defines what is right as the action that maximizes that end. As used here, a group can be those people of a specific city, state, nation, or race, and any particular group has “greater importance than any particular individual or subgroup within it, because its good exceeds the sum of any and all of its parts” (Freeman 49). Those in support of macro ethics would justify the sacrifice of an individual or part within the group, as long as it brings about beneficial consequences for the group as a whole.
The Many Faces of Hamlet
The Many Faces of Hamlet
Of all the characters in the play, Hamlet by William Shakespeare, the character of Hamlet is without a doubt the most complex. His emotions are never stable, his feelings are constantly changing, and his behavior is confusing and inconsistent. Hamlet is described as “a half a dozen characters rolled into one” (Shaw 344) and with as many adjectives in one sentence as “cruel, angry, tender, depressed, clownish, manic, and filled with loathing for women, humanity, life, and himself” (Epstein 329). When put into perspective, however, perhaps this harsh description of Hamlet is justified. With all he has had to deal with (apparitions, deaths, deceit, and interference in his personal life,) it would be very odd if Hamlet’s personality and beliefs did not fit the description above.
Hamlet is also thought to possess a melancholic temperament. According to the Elizabethans, a melancholic temperament was marked by its instability. The melancholic person, in this case Hamlet, is prone to sudden bouts of nervousness along with other sporatic mental changes. Also, Hamlet is subject to an erratic type of demeaner characterized by extreme and spontaneous mood fluxuation (Bradley 100). It has been said that melancholy accounts for Hamlet’s inaction since the immediate cause of that is feelings of apathetic discouragement. The body is simply inert, and thus not prone to act (Bradley106).
Hamlet, due to such melancholy, can also be deemed fickle in that he goes from one emotion to the next. He goes from mad to lucid such as when he exhibits calmness and content behavior when in his dear friend Horatio’s presence to downright cruel and crude when he is in his once beloved Ophelia’s presence. One minute …
… middle of paper …
…Leonora, and Laura Rozakis. Monarch Notes: William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1997.
Clemen, W.H. Quote. Literary Companion to British Authors: William Shakespeare. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1996. 113.
Epstein, Norrie. The Friendly Shakespeare. New York: Penguin, 1993.
Freud, Sigmund. Quote. Ed. Norrie Epstein. The Friendly Shakespeare. New York: Penguin, 1993. 349.
Gibson, Mel. Quote. Ed. Norrie Epstein. The Friendly Shakespeare. New York: Penguin, 1993. 336.
Harbage, Alfred. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. New York: Penguin, 1957.
Literary Companion to British Authors: William Shakespeare. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1996
Mehl, Dieter. Shakespeare’s Tragedies: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge, 1986.
Shaw, George Bernard. Quote. Ed. Norrie Epstein. The Friendly Shakespeare. New York: Penguin, 1993. 344.